Questioning the Basis of AGW Denial

Do we not all know that the banking crowd will glom onto any vehicle, hijack any cause, to turn a buck? History is rife with evidence that the Empire, too, will piggyback a noble calling (like saving the African children to ouster a madman) as an excuse to invade en route to stealing the resources of other nations. Likewise, the money parasites will create Carbon Taxes and Credits and derivatives and the like to save us from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). But as a fallout, others will point to this capitalist exploitation as a sure sign of the fraudulent existence of AGW in the first place. In reality, AGW is no more a scam than the very real exploitation of the African children.

Rather than read the history of global warming for themselves found HERE [put aside a month to do so], they prefer to see AGW as a underhanded plot. But this in itself makes little to no sense.

The premise is that the data supporting AGW is scientifically fraudulent. What this means is that ALL the data collected regarding Greenhouse Gases since the 1950s -- from Roger Revelle on, has been part and parcel of this banking and government conspiracy. And the bankers-governments involved continued funding this ongoing fraud until the mid 1990s when, at that point, they decided to cash out.

Isn't it far more likely that it wasn't until the mid-1990s, shortly after the BigOil denial campaign took off, that the issue of AGW was fiscally bankable with the public and so the bankers responded accordingly? And that the consistent and diversely collected data evidencing AGW via greenhouse gases since the 1950s is real, despite the hiccups of some recently overplayed emails?

Stephen Harper, neither psycho nor insane

Still one must wonder what is sane about Mr Harper's world? There is little logically sound about his general reasoning. True enough, if one adopts any variety of Harper's well understood as erroneous premises, one may reach the same ridiculous conclusions.

Recall the revealing snipe Stephen Harper made early in his political career while delivering a controversial speech to a rightwing American think tank, the Counsel for National Policy:

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

So how widely dis-educated is Stephen Harper when it takes so little to get up to speed with the fundamental error of that view? From an on-line encyclopedia:

...Ideas such as the culture of poverty first promulgated by Oscar Lewis blamed poor people for perpetuating their condition through inappropriate values and “weak ego structures.” ... Blaming the victims (stigmatized and disadvantaged groups such as the poor) was shown to not only hide the effects of power and privilege but also to stifle recognition of a need to address social problems through sociopolitical change. ... Yet these explanations, which blamed specific populations for social pathology, merely replaced racial determinism with cultural determinism. (emphasis added)

Social Pathology LINK


This is just one of many available examples of dumb positions held by Harper. Positions which, when examined, help anchor him to his ideological faiths on various fronts -- theological, scientific, economic, political, etc.

Stephen Harper is neither a thinker nor an educated man. He is well-schooled in the myths, old and new, which perpetuate the false hierarchies of select men over all others.

In short, Harper's mind has been "instructed with learned ignorance, and furnished with unlearned wisdom" (as coined by Bertrand Russell). And for our own democratic safety, we must steer clear of that lot.

The Truth is Front and Centre

It was necessary for the federal government to intervene in Air Canada's labour disputes because a shutdown at the country's largest airline at a peak travel time could take a toll on the economy, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

I see. The union can bargain against one of the most powerful businesses in the nation provided it doesn't substantively upset the business itself.

So this is it. The dual is on. Here's your pistol, Mr Labour, but, oh wait, I first need to remove your bullets.

OK, carry on.

Fair is fair, right?

Harper is a clown. Unfortunately he is a dangerous one as well. But what's even worse is the fact that most people will cling to the delusion that the system is going to be, or can be, fixed from within. They think they can still vote themselves a cure. Now that's mass delusion -- even worse than the individual disease that Harper suffers from.

If a fix was coming our way, if the interests of the population at large were the primary concern of government, then why is our society so far removed from such a result? We've had 145 years of this democracy, and still most people are left unfulfilled.

Meaningful human relationships are damn near non-existent, the environment is on the verge of sustainable collapse for all of humanity, our national policy now supports blowing up another country if it dare try to defend itself -- and still we carry on, participating with these criminals on their terms as to what constitutes political engagement. Does anyone sincerely believe this is the very best we can do?

Obviously the best minds are not making it into government or business, despite the rhetoric. The most dogmatic, brainwashed, socio-pathological and selfish, perhaps. But intelligence if nothing if it isn't tempered with intelligent behaviour, something we've been in short supply of for quite some time.

Why the crimes of state everywhere we look? Foreign. National. Regional. Is this all we can create in a land of golden opportunity after 145 years of our non-primitive ways? And we think this is OK? We are willing to accept this as good enough? Are we unable to stop the lunacy? Must we repeatedly elect and follow complete rejects representing the worse of people into office? Folks, these people are not leaders. They are opportunists.

The absolute truth is simple: our governance is so broken systemically that it cannot even try to make this world better for the people first and foremost, despite its paper obligation to serve the people.

Have we so little self-respect and confidence that we feel the necessity for all this?